Tuesday, April 16, 2013

MiLB Ejection of the Week (April 14): Jon Saphire (1)

HP Umpire Jon Saphire ejected Indians catcher Brian Jeroloman for arguing a catcher's interference call in the bottom of the 4th inning of the Indians-Clippers game. With one out and two on, Jeroloman was called for
Saphire ejects Jeroloman.
catcher's interference against Clippers batter Ryan Rohlinger, allowing Rohlinger to reach base and create a bases loaded situation for Columbus. Jeroloman also was called for catcher's interference in the bottom of the third inning, also while Rohlinger was batting. At the time of the ejection, the Clippers were leading, 2-1. The Indians ultimately won the contest, 12-7.

Wrap: Indianapolis Indians vs. Columbus Clippers (Triple-A IL), 4/14/13
Video: Jeroloman commits catcher's interference, argues and is ejected

In 2012, Durham Bulls batter Hideki Matsui induced catcher's interference calls on consecutive nights against Pawtucket Red Sox catcher Ryan Lavarnway, who was not ejected for arguing those calls.

16 comments :

Gil Imber said...

Can't say that I can really see the interference clearly in the video; but did you see the call at first? The runner was ruled safe by U1--so what exactly is the catcher getting upset about? Maybe he should be working on his ballplaying skills to get to the show and worry about his debate skills later in life...

Gil Imber said...

They got the out at second when attempting the DP, which would get taken away with the interference.

Gil Imber said...

I bet he's probably arguing that the hitter was out of the box and caused it illegally.

Also, I wonder why the coach took the interference instead of the run?

Gil Imber said...

This reminds me of a funny story. I once had a catcher get smacked in the mitt, about as obvious of a catcher's interferance as possible. And the catcher says to me "You can't call that, he was standing at the box of the batters box." If only players and coaches had to pass a rules test to play...

Gil Imber said...

Folks, technically speaking, Interference is called against the Offense not the Defense which should be Obstruction. The coach of the offense then has the option to take the results of the play or the batter is awarded 1st base and all runners that are forced to advance move up one base.

Gil Imber said...

"...pass a rules test to play.." well since there is no such thing as Catcher Interference, you might want to study before you take that test.

Gil Imber said...

Umm CZ what are you talking about? There is definitely a thing called Catchers interference. The defense can cause interference. Please refer to OBR 2.00 Interference (b)

Gil Imber said...

Wrong again!

Gil Imber said...

2.00 INT (b): defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch.

It is NOT the same as obstruction and carries different penalties.

Gil Imber said...

Are you kidding me? I really hope you are not an Umpire. Catcher's interference is indeed a rule and a pretty basic one. You don't even have to be a MILB or College Umpire to know this one. If you came here to learn more about Umpiring that is fine but don't come here acting like you know everything when you just come up with pure nonsense. Like the other 2 comments said, please check interference rule 2,00(b) it should describe everything you need to know.

Gil Imber said...

Technically speaking. Oooooooooooookay, pal!

Gil Imber said...

WOW just WOW

Gil Imber said...

Oh, that should say the catcher said "You can't call that, he was standing at the BACK of the batters box." Seeing as "box of the batter's box", as I originally typed, doesn't make much sense.

Gil Imber said...

CZ, you don't happen to be the catcher I called for catcher's interference, do you? I could've seen him also making this argument, in addition to his "back of the batter's box..." line.

Gil Imber said...

maybe the manager didnt know he could take the outcome instead of the interference?

Gil Imber said...

The NFHS book is the only one that makes this distinction. I guess by the letter of the definition you COULD be correct. But to argue as such is silly. Especially since every other rulebook sees it as CI.

Post a Comment